Gun Rights versus Gun Control in the United States

So, you have decided to buy a gun. You have a weapon. You have now joined a group that has accidents due to that weapon. So, why should you not pay insurance to cover it?

The problem is traceability.

No, before that you have the problem of constitutional rights. You may "decide" to have a car, and you may "decide" to take risks with your financial security, but you have a "right" to bear arms. Undermining that right (for example by making it costly so that poor people can't afford to exercise their right) is more important than practicalities of enforcing the way you undermine it. The concept of a bill of rights becomes broken if we allow a way to work around it.

Thank you for reiterating that. I've intended to communicate that on several occasions in response to proposals to place a tax or increase the price of firearms as a way to reduce their uptake, but whether through my inability to communicate it as eloquently as you, or others' refusal to accept the existence of that roadblock to their proposals, it has yet to be acknowledged.

Quote:

If there was a well thought out proposal for amending the 2nd amendment, I would support it. But if there is any proposal for undermining anything in the bill of rights, no matter how well thought out, I must oppose that with gusto.

Hey look, someone who's actually being fair and honest about the situation faced. Either the right will have to be amended or it needs to be respected. Any other proposals are sheer fantasy and don't respect the reality in which we live.

Quote:

Edit: also "accidents" is a mischaracterization of the problem. If we proceed to address "accidents" and manage to solve them all, while ignoring intentional misuse, that wouldn't satisfy anyone on either side of the debate. The problem is people doing things on purpose. Is there any precedent for insurance being a good strategy to fix that problem? Fraud insurance maybe? I don't know how that works.

When the real desire is to get rid of firearms, the goalposts must constantly shift in order to attempt to justify what are generally either silly or unlawful proposals. First it was about spree shootings, then it was about violent crime, now it's about accidents. Anything to continue the mantra that firearms as a whole are inherently dangerous and evil devices that must not be allowed in civilian hands. Never mind their virtues, never mind individual liberty, and never mind the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment or the Bill of Rights as a whole. Just get rid of them because we say so and never mind any data that doesn't support our desire. Disagree? Well, you must have mental problems.

For myself, I have no problem with people who use public areas having to hold insurance or the like to help protect others and the state as sort of a payment for public area use. Just like I have no problem with people who are hunting or fishing on public lands requiring some sort of permit to help pay for the use and upkeep as well as to take care of any harm they do.

Public areas, but not private homes or businesses? What about transporting between private property? How to avoid enforcement only working on the good guys?

Note: I appreciate your last answer to me about enforcement, it was something I hadn't thought of. Even if I didn't reply because the thread had moved on by the time I read it.

Public areas, but not private homes or businesses? What about transporting between private property? How to avoid enforcement only working on the good guys?

No not private homes or businesses. I think one of the things that car insurance got right is that they don't require you to insure vehicles that you keep on your home, or transporting them.

Enforcement only working on the good guys? That's always the tricky part... same way as you do with car insurance. If the police pull you over for doing something wrong they check. "License, Insurance, and Registration please."

Thank you for reiterating that. I've intended to communicate that on several occasions in response to proposals to place a tax or increase the price of firearms as a way to reduce their uptake, but whether through my inability to communicate it as eloquently as you, or others' refusal to accept the existence of that roadblock to their proposals, it has yet to be acknowledged.

Thanks for the complement. Honestly I don't think I would bring up this point either, except that in the last few days I've come to the realization that it's the only thing that matters. I realized that the part of "gun rights" I care about is the "rights" part, not the "gun" part.

Quote:

Hey look, someone who's actually being fair and honest about the situation faced. Either the right will have to be amended or it needs to be respected. Any other proposals are sheer fantasy and don't respect the reality in which we live.

Well, "the reality in which we live" makes it sound like I see the amendment as an obstacle to my goals; it's not. I have no gun agenda. I do have a "rights" agenda. That's why I find myself swayed by both sides, it's not unreasonable for people to think that it should be a "right" to not be assaulted by haphazard bullets, similar to how the government has managed to find a way to reduce the haphazardness of unarmed assault. But there is an established system for agreeing on what our "rights" are, and it's a step backwards to trivialize the establishment of "rights" in general in order to try to back-door a new "right," even if the new "right" has its heart in the right place.

Speedbumps like the amendment process are there for a good reason, and it's right and proper that you need to find enough support to overcome them in order to instantiate new rights. If you can't, then your goals just aren't good enough. That's where I'm coming from.

Public areas, but not private homes or businesses? What about transporting between private property? How to avoid enforcement only working on the good guys?

No not private homes or businesses. I think one of the things that car insurance got right is that they don't require you to insure vehicles that you keep on your home, or transporting them.

Agreed, but cars also have the advantage that it's obvious when you're transporting vs using, so you don't need insurance to ship it between private properties. But if you must travel through public space to get from your home to the gun range, should you need insurance for that?

Quote:

Enforcement only working on the good guys? That's always the tricky part... same way as you do with car insurance. If the police pull you over for doing something wrong they check. "License, Insurance, and Registration please."

Yeah but how often do people carrying guns get "pulled over?" Strangely, this is the same question I asked you before, and the answer was that they come to your home for incidental reasons. I'm having a hard time translating that answer to this circumstance. Before the authorities knew you were required to comply (with locking your guns because of who you live with) because they found your house mate. But this time, how does the authority know you did or will take your gun off-premises? If they find that you have a gun in your home, why can't you just say you don't need insurance because it never leaves your home?

More often then you imagine. There was an entire section in the CCW class I took that dealt with how to respond to an officer if you are Carrying and you are stopped. Basically you tell the officer immediately that you are carrying, where the gun is and that you are legal to do so and then ask the officer what they want you to do next.

Quote:

If they find that you have a gun in your home, why can't you just say you don't need insurance because it never leaves your home?

That's the exact same problem they would have if they come to your home, see you have a car there that you don't have insurance for.

We don't stop people in this country to check for insurance, however if you are stopped for any other reason, they'll check.

More often then you imagine. There was an entire section in the CCW class I took that dealt with how to respond to an officer if you are Carrying and you are stopped. Basically you tell the officer immediately that you are carrying, where the gun is and that you are legal to do so and then ask the officer what they want you to do next.

News to me. I have never been stopped by police (not counting for driving, in which cases I had no weapon in the car but I don't see any way they would have known if I had). I'm not a criminal, nor do I "look" like one. I'm starting to wonder if the effectiveness of this measure would depend on the use of profiling.

Quote:

Quote:

If they find that you have a gun in your home, why can't you just say you don't need insurance because it never leaves your home?

That's the exact same problem they would have if they come to your home, see you have a car there that you don't have insurance for.

I own a Belgian Shepherd too! Great dog. Sheds like crazy. Mine is a great alert dog, but wouldn't, probably couldn't, hurt anything. I know people will argue otherwise, but I honestly don't think it has occurred to her that she could bite anyone. Gentlest creature on earth.

News to me. I have never been stopped by police (not counting for driving, in which cases I had no weapon in the car but I don't see any way they would have known if I had). I'm not a criminal, nor do I "look" like one. I'm starting to wonder if the effectiveness of this measure would depend on the use of profiling.

Lots of people get tickets for speeding, failure to yield, failure to obey a trafic light.. ect ect ect every day. When that happens the police officer writing the ticket is going to ask for... License, Registration, and Proof of Insurance.

As for having a weapon in your car, but it's secured and not visible I would count that the same as towing a car that is secured. You don't need insurance on the car that isn't being operated but is only being transported to another location.

Quote:

Yeah, exactly. Does that ever happen?

Happens all the time, but the police don't care because it's not a crime to have a vehicle on your property that doesn't have insurance on it. It's only a crime if you drive it on public streets without insurance.

Just like if the police come to your house and see you have shoes, they don't fret about the fact that because you have shoes you *MAY* have jaywalked in them but they have no way of proving it.

We don't stop people in this country to check for insurance, however if you are stopped for any other reason, they'll check.

Roadblocks justified as checking for drunk-drivers catch many more paperwork violations than drunks, and this fact is not lost on agencies that establish those roadblocks.

Yup, and that is a cheap way to subvert the law by the police, and in a perfect world I'd be open to ending it as a practice or at least limiting the things they could check for to simple DUI. However in my grand scheme of injustice, it's so low as to be a "meh".

I counter you anecdotal evidence with my own. March of 09 I paid $780 for a new S&W Revolver (MSRP right at $1000). Looking online right now, I see a new one for $699. I found another one, "like new" for $625. Another one "90-100%" for $588. A no reserve auction ended on 12/17/12 for a used one went for $490.

Isn't that '09 another one of the "undesirable" S&W's with the integrated lock? Basically, like mine, it's a lemon as far as collecting goes. It's an outlier. Nevertheless, give it a few more years and it'll probably go up.

I'm *not* saying guns are great investments in general, though they can be for careful collectors. I'm just saying they're in a completely different class than fast-depreciating assets like home electronics, cars, and even "durable goods" like refrigerators and washing machines.

Not an unflattering comparison, although unfortunately Taurus puts locks on all their imported handguns which removes them from my consideration. I'd like to have their licensed Madsen submachinegun and SG540-derivative assault rifles in my collection, but import prospects are daunting.

Quote:

I personally own a Smith & Wesson revolver that I later found out was "undesirable" because it has the integrated trigger lock.

SWHC seems perversely intent on keeping the locks even though they limit the desirability, marketshare and margin of the product.

Tsur wrote:

I counter you anecdotal evidence with my own. March of 09 I paid $780 for a new S&W Revolver (MSRP right at $1000). Looking online right now, I see a new one for $699.

Smith & Wesson MSRPs are entirely fictional. Prices were up at that point in time, but not long ago that was the price of a high-end Custom Shop revolver.

By sheer coincidence, a friend of mine finally got around to purchasing his first carbine, and got one of the base model S&W ARs with the nitrocarburized barrel for the very attractive price of $650 barely two months ago. He's dismayed about ammunition price and availability, though, not having large stocks on hand from the time not long ago when surplus domestic, South African and Greek exports were reasonably priced.

DeedlitCryogenic wrote:

AKs and SKSes with the ugly orange dyed wood, or worse orange plastic furnature are NOT appreciating in value, but I certainly classify them as "junk guns." You can flip one of those junk guns to pure gold by simply having a matched factory scope for it. (IE sniper model. Sell for 3-10x as much, and appreciate in value faster.)

Old AK and SKS imports increased in (depreciating dollar) value -- those weren't rebuilt domestically to comply with import laws like current models -- Polytechs in particular; furniture is easily swapped on these though the vintage models with dark wood command a premium. The scarcity of real SVDs aside, I've never heard of a premium for scoped versions of these; I find the factory scope on a vintage NORINCO of mine to be useful but ungainly and inelegant.

DeedlitCryogenic wrote:

Hell if nothing but 30 round magazines get banned, and the magazines are grandfathered in, just the magazines will explode in value.

The prices I experienced during the ban for Galil, Glock, SIG-Sauer, AR and HK rifle (commercial, before the Rheinmetall dumping) magazines would surprise many today.

Lots of people get tickets for speeding, failure to yield, failure to obey a trafic light.. ect ect ect every day. When that happens the police officer writing the ticket is going to ask for... License, Registration, and Proof of Insurance.

Are you giving that as analogy or as direct answer? I didn't think you were suggesting that gun insurance would be enforced at traffic stops... are you? That doesn't seem to be a hard law to avoid 100% of the time.

Quote:

As for having a weapon in your car, but it's secured and not visible I would count that the same as towing a car that is secured. You don't need insurance on the car that isn't being operated but is only being transported to another location.

So if someone wanted to have a gun available but not pay insurance, they could just keep it in their car all the time? Under what condition would they pay, only if they carry it on their person?

Quote:

Happens all the time, but the police don't care because it's not a crime to have a vehicle on your property that doesn't have insurance on it. It's only a crime if you drive it on public streets without insurance.

I counter you anecdotal evidence with my own. March of 09 I paid $780 for a new S&W Revolver (MSRP right at $1000). Looking online right now, I see a new one for $699. I found another one, "like new" for $625. Another one "90-100%" for $588. A no reserve auction ended on 12/17/12 for a used one went for $490.

Pont wrote:

Isn't that '09 another one of the "undesirable" S&W's with the integrated lock?

Nope. No integrated lock on my gun.

Tsur wrote:

I'm *not* saying guns are great investments in general, though they can be for careful collectors. I'm just saying they're in a completely different class than fast-depreciating assets like home electronics, cars, and even "durable goods" like refrigerators and washing machines.

I don't disagree. I think, that for the most part, guns do depreciate more slowly than other durable goods. My own gun is an example. But you were arguing that most guns (more than 51% of 300 million) go up in value. There's just no way that's true.

I counter you anecdotal evidence with my own. March of 09 I paid $780 for a new S&W Revolver (MSRP right at $1000). Looking online right now, I see a new one for $699. I found another one, "like new" for $625. Another one "90-100%" for $588. A no reserve auction ended on 12/17/12 for a used one went for $490.

Pont wrote:

Isn't that '09 another one of the "undesirable" S&W's with the integrated lock?

Nope. No integrated lock on my gun.

Tsur wrote:

I'm *not* saying guns are great investments in general, though they can be for careful collectors. I'm just saying they're in a completely different class than fast-depreciating assets like home electronics, cars, and even "durable goods" like refrigerators and washing machines.

I don't disagree. I think, that for the most part, guns do depreciate more slowly than other durable goods. My own gun is an example. But you were arguing that most guns (more than 51% of 300 million) go up in value. There's just no way that's true.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but there's been sort of a rush on gun buying in recent weeks and demand has far outstripped supply for quite a variety of firearms and related items like standard-capacity magazines over 10 rounds. As noted previously, within the context of functional firearms in good or better condition, there's every evidence that many have had their values go up significantly. A quick search of GunBroker would likely provide ample proof. Is this an anomaly? Sure, in the sense that it hasn't happened with this amplitude in years, though if they do become restricted in some fashion, it is likely the values would be retained going forward for a variety of reasons and as a result of a number of factors that affect a market undergoing an artificial contraction like that, so the higher value has the potential to become the new norm. In the meantime, and depending on what happens with legislation during the next couple years, it's likely the prices will moderate a bit, though it is questionable whether they will ever return to pre-2012 levels.

So if someone wanted to have a gun available but not pay insurance, they could just keep it in their car all the time? Under what condition would they pay, only if they carry it on their person?

Depens on where and how they have it their car. I mean locked up in the trunk in a case is not the same thing as having it in the glove compartment. Same thing with booze and open container laws. IF you have an open beer in the cup holder, you're going to get tagged with open container. If you have a box of wine that's open but in the trunk of your car in a cooler the cops won't give you a ticket.

CCW for personal carry would be a clear example. Hunting on public land, shooting on public land, and depending on how they want to transport it it could be required as well.

Keeping things as close to a car analogy as well.

Quote:

Are you giving that as analogy or as direct answer? I didn't think you were suggesting that gun insurance would be enforced at traffic stops... are you? That doesn't seem to be a hard law to avoid 100% of the time.

Well much like car insurance it's really only enforced when something has already gone wrong.

Example: CCW doesn't have insurance... shoots somebody on the street in a self defense action... doesn't get charged with murder but because he operated his gun in public without the insurance he is now facing ((for example)) maybe some jail time but automatically loses his CCW and is prevented from getting one again for X number of years.

Another example: CCW doesn't have insurance... is stopped by the cops because he is trespassing... they notice his gun, ask for his CCW license which he has, so no charge on that... but no insurance. The person is facing trespassing charges, and all the penalties from carrying in public without a license.

Another another Example: Open carry person ((in a state where open carry is legal)) is disorderly at a tea party rally. The cops arrest him, find he doesn't have insurance. The open carry is legal so no penalty, no insurance is a crime, as is disorderly conduct.

Trafic stops could determine that if the person has a CCW license and informs the trafic officer ((as they are supposed to)) that they are carrying, the officer would then be allowed to ask for his proof of insurance just like he can ask for the proof of insurance on a car.

Of course "Gun Insurance" as an idea is flawed because insurance doesn't cover for criminal acts you do but instead of accidents. The number of gun deaths caused by accidents is really small in this country. Under 600 or so a year. The homicides wouldn't be covered any more than car insurance will "cover you" if you get mad at your spouse and decide to run her over with your car.

Tsur what exact model of S&W is it? I'm sort of curious of which ones to avoid if they crash that fast in value. The guns that I've been looking at have all gone up in value as long as the last owner didn't shoot the hell out of them. Which is the same as a comic book for collecting. Even 1-2 readings of a comic will drop the value for awhile and make is so you have to wait 5+ years before you have a chance of breaking even.

Of course "Gun Insurance" as an idea is flawed because insurance doesn't cover for criminal acts you do but instead of accidents. The number of gun deaths caused by accidents is really small in this country. Under 600 or so a year. The homicides wouldn't be covered any more than car insurance will "cover you" if you get mad at your spouse and decide to run her over with your car.

The purpose of a gun insurance proposal is to advance an idea that seems prudent, but is in fact designed to massively raise barriers to entry and to create pretext for registration, which has no real purpose except to create a crime of not being registered and to facilitate confiscation. I intend not to entertain such proposals, and they are not made in good faith in any event.

Tsur what exact model of S&W is it? I'm sort of curious of which ones to avoid if they crash that fast in value. The guns that I've been looking at have all gone up in value as long as the last owner didn't shoot the hell out of them. Which is the same as a comic book for collecting. Even 1-2 readings of a comic will drop the value for awhile and make is so you have to wait 5+ years before you have a chance of breaking even.

Meh. It's an isolated and rare event. Just ignore that it happened. The media just constantly blows these things out of proportion.

"Meh" seems a little too blase. "Geez" seems more appropriate.

Sure it's isolated and rare. That's not the point. Shootings anywhere suck, but for another shooting to be in Aurora is just sad. For some people in Aurora (like the cops) it's probably starting to feel less isolated and rare.

From what I've read so far, they know four are dead but they have no idea when or how they died. It does seem this guy was not a kill-as-many-people-as-possible spree shooter. But how about we wait until some facts come out before we start wildly speculating.

Meh. It's an isolated and rare event. Just ignore that it happened. The media just constantly blows these things out of proportion.

"Meh" seems a little too blase. "Geez" seems more appropriate.

Sure it's isolated and rare. That's not the point. Shootings anywhere suck, but for another shooting to be in Aurora is just sad. For some people in Aurora (like the cops) it's probably starting to feel less isolated and rare.

He's trying to bait people.

Anyway, here's a link to news on the incident, which took place in a private residence.

Also, just saw this one linked by someone on facebook, which appears to support a number of things I'd posited earlier. Just another set of anecdotes to discard, naturally.

David Gregory was recorded live, on the air, at NBC waving around a USGI 30 round magazine, and continues to walk free while not even being charged, but yet a private citizen just driving through DC was arrested and charged (and ultimately aquitted after refusing to take a deal) for merely possessing two Glock magazines. LINK

Quote:

The Washington Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) inquiry into whether NBC’s David Gregory possession on national TV of an illegal 30-round “high-capacity” magazine has been ongoing for three weeks. Meanwhile, U.S. Army veteran James Brinkley is still grappling with the fallout from his arrest last year on the same charge.

Mr. Brinkley’s story is just one example of at least 105 individuals who, unlike Mr. Gregory, were arrested in 2012 for having a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds.

On Sept. 8, Mr. Brinkley says he intended to drop his wife and young children at the White House for a tour and then head to a shooting range to practice for the U.S. Marshals Service test. Just like Mr. Gregory, Mr. Brinkley called MPD in advance for guidance on how he could do this legally. Mr. Brinkley was told that the gun had to be unloaded and locked in the trunk, and he couldn’t park the car and walk around.

Unlike Mr. Gregory, Mr. Brinkley followed the police orders by placing his Glock 22 in a box with a big padlock in the trunk of his Dodge Charger. The two ordinary, 15-round magazines were not in the gun, and he did not have any ammunition with him.

As he was dropping off his family at 11 a.m. on the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue, Mr. Brinkley stopped to ask a Secret Service officer whether his wife could take the baby’s car seat into the White House. The officer saw Mr. Brinkley had an empty holster, which kicked off a traffic stop that ended in a search of the Charger’s trunk. Mr. Brinkley was booked on two counts of “high capacity” magazine possession (these are ordinary magazines nearly everywhere else in the country) and one count of possessing an unregistered gun.

David Gregory was recorded live, on the air, at NBC waving around a USGI 30 round magazine, and continues to walk free while not even being charged, but yet a private citizen just driving through DC was arrested and charged (and ultimately aquitted after refusing to take a deal) for merely possessing two Glock magazines. LINK

David Gregory was recorded live, on the air, at NBC waving around a USGI 30 round magazine, and continues to walk free while not even being charged, but yet a private citizen just driving through DC was arrested and charged (and ultimately aquitted after refusing to take a deal) for merely possessing two Glock magazines. LINK

Such complete bullshit, and absolutely expected.

Just to be clear -- you are upset he isn't being prosecuted for a law you don't approve of?

Just to be clear -- you are upset he isn't being prosecuted for a law you don't approve of?

Yep. Because if he were, that might make the 'privileged class' he's part of finally take notice. It's a bullshit law, but it's even worse that it only applies to 'the little people'. They want to pass these laws, they damn well should have to live under them like everyone else.

A lot of the high profile "NO GUNS!" types aren't entirely truthful when they say "NO GUNS", what they really mean is "NO GUNS for anyone but me".

There's not really any reason for a current-production firearm to go up in value. Why would anyone purchase something used for more, when they could get the same exact firearm new for less? It's simple supply and demand. The only reason for any firearm to ever appreciate in value is if there is scarcity, such as a discontinued model or an inability for production to keep up with demand as we're seeing right now.

I bought a number of firearms when I was still a novice, which I later determined weren't good choices for me. Since they were all modern current-production firearms no one was about to pay me original-price for them, so I sold them at a pretty substantial losses.

LordFrith wrote:

Just to be clear -- you are upset he isn't being prosecuted for a law you don't approve of?

The rule of law demands that everyone be held to the same standard.

Tsur wrote:

Geez. Another Aurora shooting. Four dead.

Pulling up some news articles, it wasn't a spree shooting. It was inside of a private residence, and the perpetrator and victims either lived together or at least knew each other. Something like this wouldn't even get national media attention if it weren't in the town of Aurora while the media is in the middle of a hyper-focus on gun control.

Just to be clear -- you are upset he isn't being prosecuted for a law you don't approve of?

Yep. Because if he were, that might make the 'privileged class' he's part of finally take notice. It's a bullshit law, but it's even worse that it only applies to 'the little people'. They want to pass these laws, they damn well should have to live under them like everyone else.

A lot of the high profile "NO GUNS!" types aren't entirely truthful when they say "NO GUNS", what they really mean is "NO GUNS for anyone but me".

First of all, I love David Gregory. I faithfully watch Meet the Press and think he's awesome. So I'm glad he wasn't arrested. Though I do feel for the other guy.

Secondly, while David Gregory may earn a lot of money (I guess, though I have no way of knowing) I don't know that he's part of your 'privileged class'. He wasn't born rich. And he worked his way up from a beat reporter.

Thirdly, is David Gregory a high profile 'NO GUNS!' person? I've been watching him since he got the gig and he seems very balanced on gun issues.

edit:

Came up with a fourthly. It looks like David Gregory's staff asked the police for permission to show the clip and was denied. According to David Schuster, it was just a miscommunication, "I'm certain they had an inadvertent miscommunication and were misled by another law enforcement agency official, both of which contributed to the blunder. " Not saying that makes it right to break the law, but it seems unlikely that it was flagrant.

Pulling up some news articles, it wasn't a spree shooting. This wouldn't even be newsworthy if it weren't in Aurora.

Just to be clear, because this is the 2nd time it's been mentioned, nobody said it was a spree shooting. And to your second point, I agree with you and that's why I posted it - because it was in Aurora.

There's not really any reason for a current-production firearm to go up in value. Why would anyone purchase something used for more, when they could get the same exact firearm new for less? It's simple supply and demand.

There's not really any reason for a current-production firearm to go up in value. Why would anyone purchase something used for more, when they could get the same exact firearm new for less? It's simple supply and demand.

Finally! Someone who doesn't believe guns are gold.

Oh I don't think guns are gold, but if you have half a clue about your buying, the ones you buy as heirloom or collectible should appreciate in value. I kinda lucked out in two ways, one, finding high quality factory wood is getting very very hard these days. Most manufacturors are embracing plastics in a big way.

Secondly, I dislike having to reload at the range, so I bought sufficient numbers of high cap magazines so I wouldn't have to. Today the same magazines are virtually impossible to obtain, and if any sort of magazine capacity limit goes through they WILL be gold. Though I suppose the fingernail polish markings I have on them may depreciate their value a dot.

There's not really any reason for a current-production firearm to go up in value. Why would anyone purchase something used for more, when they could get the same exact firearm new for less? It's simple supply and demand.

Finally! Someone who doesn't believe guns are gold.

Lets not start implying that gold always appreciates in value, this thread is hard enough to read as it is.